sign in sign up
<<
Home , Piyyut

a Silluq for ,תשמיע ניחומים ללישה – New Data on in Classical Piyyut Shim‘u by Yoḥanan ha-

Michael Rand University of Cambridge

Abstract: The present article briefly reviews the research that has been conducted to-date on the תשמיע use of Aramaic in Classical piyyut, and provides new material in this field: the silluq from a qedushta for Shabbat Shim‘u by Yoḥanan ha-Kohen, which includes an ניחומים ללישה Aramaic passage. One of the manuscript sources for this composition, ms. ENA 3443/2, is also analyzed, and its copyist is identified as Eli ben Yehoshua he-Ḥaver (11th century).

Keywords: Aramaic, piyyut, Yoḥanan ha-Kohen, Shabbat Shim‘u, Eli ben Yehoshua he-Ḥaver

1. Introduction Over the course of approximately the past decade the subject of Aramaic in piyyut has received a certain amount of scholarly attention. By way of introduction to the text that is edited below, I would like to provide some essential background, and then to speculate with regard to a number of potential interim results.

First, let us consider piyyut,1 which is a kind of poetic literature whose existence is intimately tied to the rabbinic Jewish liturgy that emerged in Roman and Late Antiquity and continues in use to this day in various geographically-defined rites. 2 For the present purposes, the fundamental tectonic principle of Jewish liturgy may be described as the stringing together of various liturgical benedictions (berakhot, sing. berakha), such that a specific sequence of benedictions represents a given prayer. I will focus here on the Prayer par excellence, known as the amida (pl. amidot) which essentially defines a statutory liturgical occasion—i.e., the Jewish liturgical day may be meaningfully described in terms of the amidot that are recited over its course.3

The benediction, which is the fundamental building block of the amida, has an internal articulation of its own. In a string of benedictions, the first opens with a formula whose most Blessed are you O Lord, our God, King of‘ ברוך אתה יי אלהינו מלך העולם אשר... :standard form is the Universe, who…’ This formulaic opening is followed by the body of the benediction, which The body is composed in prose .אשר is introduced in the form of a relative clause dependent on

* I would like to record my gratitude to my teacher Shulamit Elizur and to Ya’akov Setel, both of whom kindly read and commented on an early version of this article, especially the commentary to the piyyut edited below. שירת-הקודש העברית ,For a comprehensive treatment of piyyut and the history of its development see E. Fleischer 1 ,: Magnes, 2nd ed., 2007). A useful English-language introduction may be found in M. Rand) בימי-הביניים ‘Fundamentals of the Study of Piyyut’, in C. Leonhard and H. Löhr (eds.), Literature or Liturgy? – Early Christian Hymns and Prayers in their Literary and Liturgical Context in Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) pp. 107- 125. 2 For the early history of , see J. Heinemann, Prayer in the (Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter: 1977). The most accessible and comprehensive English-language handbook on the subject is I. Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (trans. R.P. Scheindlin; Philadelphia/New York/Jerusalem: JPS/JTSA, 1993). 3 The other core Jewish prayer, which I will not discuss here, is the Shema, which is centered on the recitation of the verse ‘Hear, O Israel…’ (Deut. 6:4). See Elbogen, Liturgy, pp. 16-24. that provides its specific content, i.e., various forms of praise and supplication addressed to God. The prose body is followed in turn by an abbreviated concluding formula, which summarizes its Blessed are You, O Lord…’4 Thereupon follow all subsequent benedictions‘ ברוך אתה יי... :theme in the chain, with the exception that, unlike the first benediction, they dispense with the opening formula, beginning directly with the body. According to the ancient rite of Palestine, in the context of which piyyut arose and developed in its initial phases, the weekday amida contains 18 benedictions. However, in all of the rites currently in use, which are ultimately rooted in the rite of Babylon, the number has gone up to 19. In all rites, the amida for Sabbaths and Festivals contains only seven benedictions.

The Jewish liturgical calendar is founded on the simultaneous operation of two cycles: the cycle of the Sabbaths, at the basis of which lies the sequential weekly reading of Pentateuchal lections, each of which is associated with a fixed Prophetic lection (haftara); and the cycle of Festivals and special Sabbaths. The periodicity of the first cycle depends on the number of lections into which the Pentateuch is divided. Thus, in the Palestinian rite, the entire Pentateuch was read over the course of approximately three and a half years, while the Babylonian rite the reading was completed in one year. The festival cycle is annual and begins with .

Returning now to the structure of the amida, it is evident that the string of benediction formulas constitutes the skeletal structure of the prayer, with specific content being supplied by the body of each benediction. Strictly speaking, from the point of view of Jewish law, only the sequence of fixed benediction formulas is obligatory, while the specific content of each benediction may be freely composed. This is where piyyut comes in. In essence, piyyut composition functions by replacing the prose, statutory body of the benediction by a poetic formulation. However, since only the body of the benediction is replaced whereas the sting of benediction formulas remains in place, the poetic amida—i.e., one in which the bodies of the sequenced benedictions have been systematically replaced with units of poetry—is a string of poetic units that is rigidly organized by means of the skeletal structure of the benediction formulas to which they are attached, in principle on a one-to-one basis. Piyyut is therefore, in the strict sense, poetic prayer, and it is firmly anchored, structurally as well as notionally, in public, statutory Jewish liturgy. The fundamental compositional principle of piyyut may in turn be expressed as the one-to-one relationship between units of poetry and liturgical fixed-points.5

In practice, the emergence of piyyut as an integral part of public Jewish prayer was facilitated by the fact that in the majority of cases the amida is recited silently by each member of the congregation and then publically repeated out-loud by the precentor (ḥazzan). The precentor’s repetition may take the form of the text that has been recited silently by each individual, with additions as ritually appropriate to a public—rather than a private—prayer. However, instead of duplicating the statutory text, the precentor’s repetition may retain only its skeletal structure of benediction formulas, around which is organized an alternative, poetic composition. The genre- term for a piyyut composition that accompanies the precentor’s recitation of the amida is qerova.

4 Cf., for example, the concluding formula of the first benediction of the amida, which praises God as the God of the Blessed are You, O Lord, Shield of Abraham’. For an‘ ברוך אתה יי מגן אברהם :Patriarchs and the Redeemer of Israel in-depth study of the development of the liturgical benediction see Heinemann, Prayer, pp. 77-103. 5 The most common type of liturgical fixed-point is the benediction formula, which is mentioned above. However, other elements in the text of the statutory liturgy may serve the same function. The qerova genre is further divided into sub-types in accordance with the different possible sorts of amida-configurations, each one being a function of the specific liturgical occasion—e.g., an amida of 18 benedictions on weekdays versus an amida of seven benedictions on Sabbaths and festivals.

The structural principles that are adumbrated here are mostly relevant to the Classical period of piyyut literature.6 It is impossible to be precise in delimiting this period, but one may say with confidence that Classical piyyut is to be placed in Palestine in Late Antique and early Muslim times. The Classical period is characterized especially by the use of rhyme and the concomitant predominance of strophic patterning, as well as the use of acrostic signatures in which the poets (payyetanim, sing. payyetan) indicate their names, and occasionally other bits of biographical information. The most prominent genre of the Classical period is the qedushta, which is a sub- type of qerova (see also below).

In addition to statutory prayer, the synagogue liturgy of Sabbaths and Festivals includes a second basic component—the Scriptural lection. As mentioned above, the cycle of Pentateuchal and Prophetic lections is one of the two fundamental parameters of the Jewish liturgical cycle.7 During the period in question, two additional aspects of the synagogue liturgy were organized around the reading of Scripture: the Targum, i.e., the translation of the biblical text into Aramaic, which served as the vernacular of Palestinian before its replacement by Arabic; and the sermon. Both of these served one way or another as expositions of the Scriptural reading. Finally, Jewish liturgy in the broad sense includes prayers recited outside of the synagogue, such as the Grace after Meals (Birkat ha-Mazon) or various funerary texts.

Given the above sketch, it is not difficult to see how piyyut, which we may define for the moment as Hebrew liturgical poetry (but see below), fits into the liturgical scheme of the synagogue—it is attached directly to the skeletal structure of the fundamental prayers, and serves as a replacement for their statutory (prose) contents. However, together with Hebrew, Jewish poetic production during the period in question proceeded along a parallel, Aramaic track. This fact is entirely consonant with the general trajectory of Jewish literary activity in Hellenistic/Roman Palestine, which indicates essentially that Jews have been composing poetry in Aramaic for as long as they have been composing literature in that language. Thus, poetry is attested already in in the Biblical Aramaic corpus, as well as among the Aramaic documents of the .8 In the Late Antique period, Jewish Aramaic poetry, which in terms of

.שירת-הקודש ,The periodization of piyyut literature is treated extensively in Fleischer 6 7 In the Classical Period, at least two full cycles of qedushtot were composed to accompany the weekly Scriptural readings of the Palestinian triennial lectionary cycle, by the payyetanim Yannai and Shim‘on bar Megas. 8 Relatively short stretches of poetic text appear in the Book of Daniel (as recognized by the editors of BHS)—see for example Dan. 2:21-22; 3:33; 7:9-20, and so forth. Aramaic poems are also attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. See for example the Ode to Sarai in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen col. 20:1-8) published in J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20) (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 3rd ed., 2004) p. 100; and the poem contained in the Aramaic Testament of Levi (4QLevia ar frg. 1 col. i 5-21, col. ii 1) published in J.C. Greenfield, M.E. Stone and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Peseudepigrapha, 19, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) pp. 102-109; M.E. Stone and J.C. Greenfield, ‘Aramaic Levi Document’, in G. Brooke et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4 XVII – Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD XXII, Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) pp. 9- 15. Jewish liturgical poetry in general, both Hebrew as well as Aramaic, is part of a wider literary phenomenon observable in the Roman and Late Antique Near East, which is manifested also in the Samaritan and Syriac (along with the Greek-Byzantine) liturgical-poetic traditions. For the three Aramaic traditions, see A.S Rodrigues Pereira, quantity as well as quality is undeniably the poor cousin of Hebrew, is divisible into three categories, each of which is associated with a certain liturgical locus. Each locus, in turn, may be defined in terms of the broad structure of Jewish liturgy as outlined above.9 The first category is Targum poetry, which is a diffuse corpus of poetic material that is associated in various ways with the Aramaic translation of the Scriptural lections.10 The second category consists of poems that are intended for incorporation into the actual prayer component of the liturgy. In principle, Aramaic piyyutim belonging to this category are directly equivalent to their Hebrew counterparts. In reality, however, no such parity exists, since—as far as can be ascertained on the basis of our present knowledge—this category is restricted to one, relatively minor genre: qinot for the Ninth of Av, i.e., dirges mourning the destruction of the Temple.11 The third category of Aramaic poems consists of those that are intended for para-liturgical occasions: wedding poems and

Studies in Aramaic Poetry (c. 100 B.C.E. – c. 600 B.C.E.) (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 34, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997), which contains ample and fully-analyzed text samples together with a generous bibliography. For the Ode to Sarai, see pp. 11-26. For a theoretical overview of this subject, see O. Münz-Manor, ‘Liturgical Poetry in the Late Antique Near East – A Comparative Approach’, Journal of Ancient 1 (2010), pp. 336-361. Leshonenu ,'לדרכי שילובם של יסודות ארמיים בפיוטי ארץ ישראל הקדומים' ,A similar observation is made by Sh. Elizur 9 70 (2008), pp. 331-348 (332-333, note 4). Jerusalem: The) שירת בני מערבא ,The largest edited collection of Targum poems is J. Yahalom and M. Sokoloff 10 'שירת בני מערבא – ,Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999). See also the important review by M. Kister Tarbiz 76 (2006), pp. 105-184. A number of Targumic poems are studied in ,היבטים בעולמה של שירה עלומה' Rodrigues Pereira, Aramaic Poetry, pp. 58-109. For additional, relatively late Eastern examples, see the Targum יוצרות רבי שמואל ,poems by Shemuel Ha-Shelishi (10th-11th centuries), edited in J. Yahalom and N. Katsumata Jerusalem: Izhak Ben-Zevi, 2014) pp. 939-956 (note especially the editors’ remarks on p. 939); and) השלישי in ,'"ראש ראשי חדשים"' edited in E. Fleischer ,אלהא אדירא שמיה :(two poems by Sahlan ben Avraham (11th century Sh. Elizur and T. Beeri eds.; Jerusalem, Magnes, 2012) pp. 871-) תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן ,idem edited in M. Rand, ‘An Aramaic Dispute between the Months by Sahlan Ben ,איתחברו ראשי שתא and ;(875) 888 Avraham’, Melilah: Manchester Journal of 9 (2012), pp. 101-113. My article contains an oversight that I would like to take the present opportunity to correct. On pp. 105-107 I reconstructed two quires of a liturgical document known as ‘The First Order of Fustat’ on the basis of five manuscripts: Quire 1: T-S H 12.11, T-S NS 125.96; Quire 2: T-S 13 H 3.11 + T-S NS 325.69, Mosseri VIII 394. According to the reconstruction offered there, the first quire is represented by three adjacent bi-folia, with material missing between the first three and the last three leaves (T-S H 12.11), the last of whose leaves is followed directly by a single leaf, which is known to be the last leaf in the quire (T-S NS 125.96). Given these data, I pointed out that the first leaf of the quire in question, i.e., first leaf of the original bi-folium whose second leaf is T-S NS 125.96, is missing. I furthermore surmised, on the assumption of an original quire consisting of five bi-folia, that this quire is missing an inner bi-folium. It escaped my notice, however, that two more leaves of the ‘The First Order of Fustat’ have been referred to in the literature: ENA pp.703-739 ,תפילות הקבע ,in idem 'שרידים נוספים מקובצי תפילה ארץ-ישראליים מן הגניזה' ,see E. Fleischer—2501/5-6 (711, note 42; for additional references to this manuscript see the index in the collected articles.) These two leaves evidently belong to the same bi-folium. The first (ENA 2501/5) contains material for and is a direct continuation of the first group of three leaves in T-S H 12.11. The second contains material for Shabbat Zakhor and and directly precedes the second group of three leaves in T-S H 12.11. These two leaves themselves are not continuous—i.e., my original assumption of a quire of five bi-folia is incorrect, and the original quire seems to have been composed of six bi-folia. 11 See M. Rand, ‘Observations on the Relationship between JPA Poetry and the Hebrew Piyyut Tradition – The Case of the Kinot’, in A. Gerhards and C. Leonhard (eds.), Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into its History and Interaction (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007) pp. 127-144. It is important to note in this context that the qina genre is quintessentially Palestinian. The qinot do not partake of the structural principle outlined above, whereby a piyyut composition is built up out of units of poetry all of which are anchored in strict sequence to liturgical fixed-points such as the concluding benediction formulas. In this sense, a qina is an independent piyyut, not a piyyut composition. On the other hand, just as piyyutim are strung together within a single piyyut composition, so qinot are also strung together, the string being inserted at the appropriate point in the liturgy of the Ninth of Av. funeral dirges.12 Poems in this category partially overlap in terms of function with their Hebrew counterparts (see below, end of Section 2).

Together with these three basic types of Jewish Aramaic liturgical poetry, there exists Aramaic material incorporated into piyyut proper. This is the material that is of interest at present, and to it I now turn. The piyyut literature is composed in a specialized Hebrew idiom whose hallmarks are well known and have been investigated in a number of studies.13 This idiom comprises certain distinctive features—morphological, syntactic, lexical and semantic—which remain reasonably stable throughout the history of piyyut composition in the East as well as in Europe. As indicated, the piyyut idiom is a form of Hebrew. For analytical purposes, it can be resolved into three components: —i.e., linguistic material drawn from the ; Rabbinic Hebrew—i.e., linguistic material drawn from Tannaitic and Amoraic writings; and piyyut Hebrew—i.e, the remainder, that which cannot be traced back to either of the two preceding categories and is therefore taken to constitute piyyut-language par excellence. On occasion, the idiom in which piyyut is composed incorporates Aramaic elements. However, until recently, this phenomenon has not been accorded much attention. The first study to treat the subject in a 'לדרכי שילובם של יסודות :sustained manner is an article published in 2009 by Shulamit Elizur The Incorporation of Aramaic Elements in Ancient) ארמיים בפיוטי ארץ ישראל הקדומים' Palestinian Piyyutim; see above, note 9). As is apparent from the title, Elizur’s analysis operates on the notion of a foreign, Aramaic element being incorporated into a Hebrew matrix. Such a notion is, in fact, reasonable, given what has been said above regarding the piyyut idiom. In accordance with it, Aramaic elements drawn either from the Aramaic portions of Scripture (Biblical Aramaic [BA]) or from the Aramaic vernacular of Byzantine-era Palestine, i.e., the language of Palestinian Targum and (JPA), are incorporated into a piyyut text, either directly in their original form or in various Hebraized forms—calques, Hebrew conjugations of '"אגג :Aramaic roots, etc. In the wake of Elizur, I published my own contribution to the subject Agag ’amar hatsda – A Qedushta] אמר הצדה" – קדושתא לפרשת זכור בלשון מעורבת עברית-ארמית' for Parashat Zakhor in a Mixed Hebrew-Aramaic Idiom].14 This article contains a critical edition of a piyyut composition that is composed in an idiom in which Hebrew and Aramaic are at times so tightly intertwined that it is no longer accurate to speak of the incorporation of Aramaic into a Hebrew matrix, but one must rather see the text as integrating the two into a new, mixed linguistic entity. On the basis of this observation, I suggested there that the concept/definition of the piyyut idiom be expanded somewhat to encompass two components, a Hebrew and an Aramaic, the former predominating massively from the quantitative point of view. In my article, I also reviewed the evidence for the use of Aramaic in previously published Classical piyyut material, noting that it is attested in the corpora of the two most famous Classical payyetanim, Yannai (ca. 6th century) and Eleazar be-rabbi Qillir (ca. 7th century), along with a payyetan The material that I investigated differs from the material 15.לעזר החזן whose acrostic signature is

.pp. 258-329 ,שירת בני מערבא ,A number of such poems are published in Yahalom and Sokoloff 12 13 The most convenient English-language introduction to the language of piyyut is M. Rand, ‘Paytanic Hebrew’, Encyclopedia of and Linguistics (Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2013) pp. 3.55-60. ,(.in M. Bar Asher and I. Meir (eds ,'"אגג אמר הצדה" – קדושתא לפרשת זכור בלשון מעורבת עברית-ארמית' ,M. Rand 14 .Jerusalem: Carmel, 2014) pp. 321-53) נִטְ עֵי אִ ילָן – מחקרים בלשון העברית ובאחיותיה מוגשים לאילן אלדר וישלח יעקב for the Seder איום ]...[ ונורא מוראך pp. 335-338. In Yannai’s qedushta ,קדושתא לפרשת זכור ,See M. Rand 15 as well as the silluq ,תקיפה ועתיק יומיה and אדום אשר ]...[ אימתני ,Gen. 32:4), the second and third rahitim) מלאכים מחזור פיוטי רבי יניי לתורה ולמועדים ,are composed overwhelmingly in Aramaic—see Z.M. Rabinovitz ומן בית יעקב אש for Yom כי מי ידע דיניך Jerusalem: Bialik, 1985) pp. 199-200. Qillir includes an Aramaic section in his silluq) – כרך א treated by Elizur in that it consists of cases of sustained presence of Aramaic, either over the course of a large portion (perhaps even the majority) of an entire composition, as in the case of the qedushta for Parashat Zakhor that I published, or within a limited stretch of text that is incorporated into the Hebrew framework of the piyyut composition in which it appears, as in the other cases that I studied. Elizur, on the other hand, examined cases of local incorporation of individual Aramaic elements (words, phrases, sentences) into the Hebrew context. In view of this distinction in the data, the slight difference in our conclusions is not surprising.

2. Aramaic Texts in Piyyutim On the basis of an analysis of the corpus that I assembled, I was able to make two generalizations about the use/status of Aramaic in the piyyut idiom. First, the integration of Aramaic and Hebrew אגג within a piyyut idiom that can truly be considered mixed is (so far) unique to the qedushta In the other cases, the linguistic borders between Hebrew and Aramaic areas of a .אמר הצדה given piyyut text are easily discerned. Second, in the majority of cases, the Aramaic that is employed in piyyut is of the BA type, the use of JPA being less common. Different degrees of mixture of the two dialects within a given Aramaic piyyut text are, moreover, attested: predominantly BA, mixed BA/JPA, and predominantly JPA.

I have now identified an additional instance of the use of Aramaic in Classical piyyut. In view of the relative rarity of Aramaic within the Classical piyyut corpus, this example is worthy of attention, and an edition of the piyyut in which it is found is provided below. The Aramaic text in question, lines 26-35 in the edition, confirms the findings summarized above. It is embedded within a Hebrew piyyut, and its beginning and end are clearly delimited. In one instance, Hebrew And He will exterminate‘ וְ יַצְמִ י קֶרֶ ן רַבְרְ בִ ין מַרְ גְשָ א :and Aramaic are mixed in a single sentence is Hebrew, both lexically ויצמית the horn that is eager [to speak] arrogantly’ (line 34). The verb as well as morphologically, whereas the rest of the sentence is Aramaic. In an apparent second Now [the fourth beast] will sprout a small, evil horn’ (l. 26), the‘ וְתַצְמִ יחַ קֶרֶ ן הזְעֵירָ ּובִ ישָ ה :case as Hebrew Hifil rather than Aramaic Afel.16 ותצמיח spelling with yod characterizes the verb appears to be attested in a parallel source (see the apparatus of ותצמח However the reading variants, ad loc.), so that the Hebrew form may be the product of a scribal slip. In the majority of cases, the Aramaic employed in the text is BA. However, a number of instances of the use of .struggling’ (l‘ מתכתשא :JPA are also attested. The following is an outright lexical JPA usage 29).17 A number of cases are also found in which a given root is attested in BA, but the form that .He will be revealed’ (l‘ יתגלה :is found in our text is lacking there, whereas it is attested in JPA to do evil’ (line‘ לְמַ בְאָשָ ה holiness’ (l. 33).19 The same is apparently the case with‘ קודשא 18,(32

'מחזורי פיוט מתוך ,Kippur. The silluq is yet unpublished, but the Aramaic section has appeared twice: E. Fleischer שירת בני ,Kobez al Yad 7 (17) (1968), pp. 1-79 (79); Sokoloff and Yahalom ,קדושתא ליום כיפור המיוחסת ליוסי בן יוסי' in the ,יוון ומקדונייה סלקן כענניה pp. 338-345. Le‘azar he-ḥazan includes an Aramaic section, beginning with ,מערבא ,for the New Moon of Kislev—see E. Fleischer משבית אימות צרים ושוסים silluq of his qedushta for 18 benedictions .(Kobez al Yad 9 (19) (1979), pp. 25-127 (86 ,'קדושתאות י"ח לראשי חדשים ולחנוכה מאת לעזר החזן' is not attested in BA. It is, however, found in JPA, including the Afel verb—see M. Sokoloff, A צמח The root 16 Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-Gan/Baltimore and London: Bar-Ilan University Press/Johns Hopkins University Press, 2nd ed., 2002) p. 466. 17 See Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 273. .to reveal’ is attested in in the Peal and Peil stems‘ גלי See Sokoloff, Dictionary, pp. 129-130. In BA, the verb 18 .קַדִ יש See Sokoloff, Dictionary, pp. 476-477. In BA, the root is attested exclusively in the adjectival form 19 is לאבאשא where the Afel infinitive takes the JPA form.20 However, the variant reading ,(30 attested (see the apparatus of variants, ad loc.), in which the corresponding BA form of the infinitive, with prefixed he, is employed. Finally, our text employs a collocation, a prepositional from the beginning, of old’ (l. 35).21‘ מִ ן רֵ אש :phrase, that is lacking in BA but attested in JPA The result, therefore comports well with the general picture referred to above—the Aramaic employed in Classical piyyut is predominantly of the BA type, with the possibility of some JPA admixtures.

In light of the data reviewed here, I may venture a number of tentative observations. The piyyut that is published below was composed by Yoḥanan ha-Kohen, a Classical payyetan in whom we may roughly see the contemporary of Eleazar be-rabbi Qillir (see above). It is therefore evident that an Aramaic component is attested in the corpora a number of prominent Classical payyetanim: Yannai, Qillir, and Yoḥanan. To these may be added the Hebrew-Aramaic qedushta which also falls squarely within the Classical piyyut tradition. Finally, an Aramaic ,אגג אמר הצדה component is attested in the work of Le‘azar he-ḥazan. Le‘azar’s dates are even more obscure than those of the three payyetanim named above, but his compositions are based on norms that are appropriate to Classical piyyut, and he is perhaps to be seen as a relatively late exponent of this period. Taking this information together with the three categories of Aramaic poetry proper that were outlined above, we may surmise that beginning with the period represented by the book of Daniel, poetic expression among Jews proceeded in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Hebrew variety was dominant, owing to the depth and richness of the Hebrew literary tradition, but in terms of basic poetic form, the two are substantially equivalent—late biblical poetry as well as poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls in both Hebrew and Aramaic exhibits to one degree or another the forms of parallelismus membrorum. This basic formal parity continues to characterize the relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic poetry in Late Antiquity—in both the biblical parallelismus membrorum is replaced by new forms of organization: acrostic, rhyme, strophic patterning, and other structural devices. The Hebrew branch of this development came to be known as piyyut, and from its inception was intimately connected to the actual texts of Jewish prayer. With the benefit of hindsight, this association seems entirely natural, as the language of statutory Jewish prayer is Hebrew.22 However, according to the evidence of the Armaic qinot (see above, note 11), tentative efforts were apparently also made to attach Aramaic poetry to statutory prayer. However, these seem to have proved largely unsuccessful—Hebrew piyyut was too well entrenched in this locus. In any case, the result of these efforts seems to have been the incorporation of Aramaic into Hebrew piyyut. As we have seen, according to the evidence at our disposal, in the Classical period (i.e., the apogee of piyyut composition in the East) such incorporation took a number of forms: the inclusion of individual Aramaic elements within a

20 Such a mem-prefixed form is listed in Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 83. For the Afel infinitive in JPA see S.E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (Harvard Semitic Studies, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) p. 177 (§133e). 21 See Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 510. 22 Aramaic is not employed in the statutory liturgy. However, it is well attested in a liturgical category that Heinemann defines as ‘prayers of Bet Midrash origin’, i.e., one that ‘came into being in conjunction with the public reading, study and exposition of the Tôrāh’—see Heinemann, Prayer, pp. 251-275 (the quote is from p. 251). Heinemann writes (pp. 265-266): ‘The comparative frequency of Aramaic in these prayers is not really surprising since, in part, they came into being in the wake of the Aramaic translation which was somewhat in the nature of a midrashic exposition; also the sermon itself was mostly delivered in the Aramaic vernacular. Moreover, the preachers presumably preferred to bless the congregation in the language easily intelligible to them’. See also below. Hebrew matrix, the inclusion of relatively short Aramaic texts within longer Hebrew piyyut compositions, or outright composition of piyyut in a mixed Hebrew-Aramaic idiom. The latter in fact seems to ,אגג אמר הצדה option, to date attested in the unique case of the qedushta represent a kind of distant echo of the initial impulse to compose in Aramaic piyyut that would be a direct analogue of the Hebrew variety.

The fact that Hebrew piyyut came to overwhelmingly predominate within the field of statutory prayer to the detriment of Aramaic composition, in addition to being reflected in the incorporation of the latter within the former, also had the effect of stimulating the development of Aramaic poetry within a specialized niche—that of the Targum (cf. also above, note 22). In other words, the more vigorous Hebrew forced Aramaic to seek refuge in this less central, though by no means marginal, liturgical locus. Again, in hindsight, the association of Aramaic poetry with Aramaic Targum seems as natural as that of the Hebrew piyyut with the Hebrew statutory liturgy. In any case, Targum proved a sure refuge for Aramaic poetry, in the context of which it was able to thrive well beyond the temporal and spatial confines of Classical piyyut.23

Finally, I have also mentioned that Hebrew and Aramaic poems are associated with various para- liturgical occasions. With the exception of the Grace after Meals, however, which is governed by the same sort of strict legal regulations that govern the statutory prayers of the synagogue, these are marginal areas of the liturgy in which Hebrew and Aramaic were allowed to subsist together. The poetic Grace after Meals, on the other hand, has evolved as an inseparable part of Hebrew piyyut, and is fully subject to its main compositional principle, which specifies the relationship between units of poetry and liturgical fixed-points.

for Shabbat Shim‘u by Yoḥanan ha-Kohen איזון שמע מדובר The Qedushta .3 The Aramaic fragment under examination here is part of a liturgical composition called a qedushta.24 The qedushta is composed of component piyyutim, the last of which is called the silluq. Within the liturgical framework, the silluq is immediately followed by the recitation of the ’…Holy, holy, holy‘ קדוש קדוש קדוש... :(first verse of the qedusha (i.e, the liturgical trisagion was ,איזון שמע מדובר ,Isa. 3:3).25 Our fragment appears in the silluq. The qedushta in question) composed by the Classical payyetan Yoḥanan ha-Kohen, who seems to have lived in Palestine or its environs around the time of the change in hegemony over the region between the Byzantine and the Arab-Muslim empires.26 The qedushta was composed for recitation on Shabbat Shim‘u,

23 For examples of post-Classical Targum poetry in the East, see note 10. Aramaic poems also accompany the reading of Scripture on the Seventh Day of Passover and Shavout in the Ashkenazic rite: see the materials published .Jerusalem: Koren, 2000) pp) מחזור שבועות ,Jerusalem: Koren, 1993) pp. 608-658; idem) מחזור פסח ,in Y. Frenkel by Meir bar Yiṣḥaq, recited after Exod. 19:1, the first אקדמות מילין The most famous of these is the poem .385-593 .(pp. 385-395 ,שבועות ,verse of the Pentateuchal lection for (idem pp. 138- ,שירת-הקודש ,The structure of the Classical qedushta for Sabbaths is described extensively in Fleischer 24 164. No full English-language treatment exists, but one may profitably consult L. Lieber, Yannai on Genesis – An Invitation to Piyyut (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2010) pp. 36-64. 25 In some qedushtaot the silluq may be followed by another series of piyyutim, which are interspersed between the verses of the qedusha. These are not attested consistently, however. 26 As mentioned above, Yoḥanan and Qillir are roughly contemporaries. The piyyutim of Yoḥanan ha-Kohen have Hebrew University PhD thesis, 1983). Our qedushta is) פיוטי יוחנן הכהן בירבי יהושע ,been edited by N. Weissenstern פיוט ומציאות ,together with J. Yahalom ,שכ-שיג .found on pp. 66-78. For the time and place of the payyetan, see pp .Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1999) pp. 84-87) בשלהי הזמן העתיקה one of the three Sabbaths of Rebuke that precede the fast of the Ninth of Av, the day on which the destruction of the Temple is commemorated.27 The seven Sabbaths that follow the fast day are in turn known as the Sabbaths of Consolation. Liturgically, these special Sabbaths are all characterized by the reading of special Prophetic lections that focus on the themes of rebuke and consolation, respectively. The custom of reading special Prophetic lections on these Sabbaths is originally Palestinian, but it was eventually adopted into the Babylonian liturgical rite as well, whence it has spread to all Jewish rites.28 The liturgical importance of the Sabbaths of Rebuke during the Classical period may be gauged by the fact that they were adorned by at least two cycles of qedushtot, composed by the payyetanim Yannai and Yehudah.29

שמעו דבר The Prophetic lection for Shabbat Shim‘u, from which it derives its name, begins with ,Hear the word of the Lord, House of Israel’ (Jer. 2:4). Hence, the theme of hearing‘ יי בית יעקב as well as other roots belonging to this semantic field, is prominent in שמע and with it the root the piyyutim for this occasion, mostly in the sense of Israel’s not hearkening to God’s commandments and His rebukes. In accordance with an ancient liturgical custom, the qedushta for Shabbat Shim‘u treats not only the theme or rebuke, but also, towards its end, the opposite theme of consolation, i.e., the restoration of Israel their land and the destruction of their enemies within ,תשמיע ניחומים ללישה at the end of days. It is the latter theme that is treated in the silluq which our fragment is found.30 The silluq was published previously in ed. Weissenstern (see note 26). However, the text given there is truncated, and more than half of the silluq, including the Aramaic portion, is missing.31 The present edition is based on four manuscript sources, including the single source employed by Weissenstern. The three additional sources employed here contain a fuller form of the silluq, though it is possible that the original, complete text has yet to be established (see below, note 38). The first 22 lines of the silluq are subject to a straight alphabetic acrostic, which does not affect the overall structuring of the piyyut into rhyme-units: with which the silluq opens and within which the acrostic appears, continues ,-שה the rhyme unit past the end of the acrostic, terminating only at line 39. In other words, the acrostic structure is not coterminous with the rhyme structure.

27 For an English-language overview of the Sabbaths of Rebuke, with special regard for Shabbat Shim‘u as reflected in piyyut, see W. Van Bekkum and N. Katsumata, ‘Shabbat Shim‘u (Jer. 2,4): A Kaleidoscopic View of a Liturgical- Poetic Theme’, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge, 37 (2011/12), 75-107. .p. 37 ,שירת-הקודש ,See Fleischer 28 ;Jerusalem: Bialik, 1987) pp. 300-325) מחזור פיוטי רבי יניי לתורה ולמועדים – כרך ב ,Yannai: Z.M. Rabinovitz 29 Yehuda: W.J. Van Bekkum, The Qedushta’ot of Yehudah according to Genizah Manuscripts (Proefschrift, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1988) pp. 535-561. For additional material from the silluq of Yehuda’s qedushta, see the article cited in the following note. In the oeuvre of Yoḥanan only the qedushta for Shabbat Shim’u is presently attested. The Qillir corpus contains parts of a monumental qedushta for Shabbat Eicha, the third of the Sabbaths of ,pp. 1.357-406; idem ,תפילות הקבע ,in idem 'לוח מועדי השנה בפיוט לר' אלעזר בירבי קיליר' ,Rebuke—see E. Fleischer 'לפתרון שאלת זמנו ומקום פעילותו של ר' ,pp. 1.407-415; idem ,תפילות הקבע ,in idem 'תשלום לקרובת הקילרי לשבת איכה' .Tarbiz 54 (1985), pp. 383-427 ,אלעזר בירבי קיליר' for Shabbat Shim‘u by אחודה ללמודי חידה from the qedushta שימע תשועה תשמיע The same is true of the silluq 30 'האם "מחזור ארץ ישראל: קודקס הגניזה" אכן שימש בארץ ישראל? קטעים חדשים של הקודקס ,Yehuda—see M. Rand Tarbiz 82 (2014), pp. 529-547 (542-545). For relatively rare midrashic material shared by ,ותרומתם להבנת טיב מנהגו' the two silluqim, see the commentary to lines 38-42 in the edition below. 31 The text given ed. Weissenstern comprises lines 1-22 of the present edition—i.e., the lines containing the alphabetic acrostic—followed by a four-line segment that serves as a thematic transition to the recitation of the qedusha. This segment is most likely not original, its purpose being to bridge the thematic discontinuity between the piyyut and the qedusha, created as a result of the truncation of the former. It is printed in small font in the Hebrew critical edition below.

is of particular codicological ,(ב) One of the manuscript sources for our text, ms. ENA 3443/2 interest with regard to its copyist. This single leaf is presently catalogued adjacent to another leaf belonging to the same copy: ENA 3443/1. These two leaves, which most likely originally belong to a single bi-folio, are not consecutive. They contain the text of a qedushta for Shabbat Shim‘u that comprises piyyutim by various payyetanim. Our silluq is copied on the verso of the second leaf, up to line 46, which is followed by three additional lines unattested elsewhere (see below), at which point the text breaks off. The bi-folio was produced by a prolific copyist employing a highly characteristic, and therefore easily-recognizable, hand. Dozens of leaves produced by this copyist have survived in the Genizah, bearing witness to an attempt to produce a poetic-liturgical program encompassing what may well have been the entire liturgical year. 32 The copyist employs a wide range of piyyutim composed by various payyetanim from the Classical period and beyond. Among the piyyut compositions preserved in the materials produced by the copyist in question, one finds compositions in which three names, signed in the acrostic, appear to :variants) יהושע and (דוסא עלי :sometimes found together in a single acrostic) עלי ,דוסא :cluster In one case, a relationship is indicated between the .(יהושע חבר ,יהושע )ה(חזן ,יהושע אלאדקי The frequency and clustering of these names led .דוׂשא החזן בן יהושע :named individuals Fleischer to surmise that they represent members of a single group or family, one of whom is ,אל לאדקי ,.i.e) יהושע אלאדקי also our copyist.33 Furthermore, on the basis of the identification of who is known to have had a poetic exchange ,יהושע אלחזאן בן אלאדקי from Latakia in Syria) with resident in Syria around the year 1015, Fleischer determined that ,עלון בן אברהם with a certain the poets represented by the names are to be placed in Syria-Palestine at around the end of the 10th or the beginning of the 11th centuries.34 He also mentioned in passing that a family whose members bear the names in question is attested in the documentary Genizah.35

Our silluq, in addition to being copied in four sources, is mentioned in a fifth: ms. Frankfurt 152 (Schocken Institute photostat).36 This manuscript, which was likely produced by a synagogue precentor for his own use, contains piyyutim that constitute part of a liturgical program for Shabbat Shim‘u. Among these, we find our silluq, which (as opposed the other piyyutim) is not copied in full, but rather simply mentioned by name, a complete copy apparently being easily :Silluq‘ סלוק. תשמיע ניחומים לליש]ה[. והו מצחח פי נסכה עלי בן יהושע החבר :available to the copyist -It[s text] is properly established in the version of Eli ben Yehoshua he .תשמיע ניחומים ללישה

32 I am currently in the early stages of a research project whose aim is to gather, reconstruct and analyze those materials produced by the copyist in question that have been preserved in the Genizah. It is already clear on the basis of my work that these materials represent more than a single codex. ,Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984) pp. 454-456. In his discussion) היוצרות בהתהוותם והתפתחותם ,See E. Fleischer 33 Fleischer concentrates specifically on the name Dosa, since this is the name that is numerically predominant in the material, but given what he writes about the impossibility of determining the exact nature of the relationship between the individuals behind the names, this point is immaterial for his argument. Fleischer also discusses the Italia 13-15 (2001), pp. 9-30 (13-14). Here, he suggests that the ,'חדותה )!(' ,matter in a later publication: idem copyist may have been Dosa’s secretary. ,p. 456. Fragments of the poems exchanged between the two are published in J. Schirmann ,היוצרות ,Fleischer 34 Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1965) p. 56. Biographical data) שירים חדשים מן הגניזה but ,'חדותה )!(' ,are given there on p. 54. The identification is not specifically repeated in Fleischer עלון בן אברהם on there is no reason to think that he had in the meantime rejected it. .pp. 13-14 notes 22-23 ,'חדותה )!(' ,p. 456 note 13; idem ,היוצרות ,Fleischer 35 36 For the Frankfurt Genizah fragments, see B. Richler, Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2014) p. 72. Ḥaver’. The names mentioned in this source tally with the names that are attested in the leaves under consideration here, together with the title ḥaver of Yehoshua.37 Furthermore, the writer of the note in ms. Frankfurt indicates that Eli ben Yehoshua he-Ḥaver had produced a manuscript containing piyyutim, of unknown extent, our silluq among them. This tallies with the suggestion already made by Fleischer that Dosa, Eli and/or Yehoshua are connected to the production of the manuscript material that contains the piyyutim bearing their names.

One may perhaps point to a further piece of evidence strengthening the identification of Eli ben together with the other material produced by) ב Yehoshua he-Ḥaver with the copyist of source .provide the full text of the silluq as given in the present edition: lines 1-65 ג and א him). Sources is truncated before the end of the silluq: it contains lines 1-46. Line 46 is the last line of ב Source ,ב In .-רה :it is followed by line 47, which opens a new rhyme-unit ג and א In .-שה the rhyme-unit on the other hand, line 46 is followed by three lines (unnumbered in the present edition) that It may be .ג and א This rhyme-unit is unattested in .-עות ,constituting an additional rhyme-unit therefore that the comment made in ms. Frankfurt to the effect that the text of the silluq is ‘properly established in the version of Eli ben Yehoshua he-Ḥaver’ refers to the presence of the 38.ב in the pristine manuscript now represented by source -עות rhyme-unit

ב The evidence provided by ms. Frankfut seems to indicate that the hand that copied source along with all the other leaves bearing the same handwriting that are scattered in the Genizah is that of Eli ben Yehoshua he-Ḥaver. This is presumably the same Eli whose name appears in the acrostic signatures of numerous piyyutim that are copied in these materials. The father of this Eli was Yehoshua he-Ḥaver, whose name is also attested in the acrostic signatures of poems copied therein. Before becoming a ḥaver, this Yehoshua, (whose family was) originally from Latakia, had been a ḥazzan. As we have seen, the acrostics in question also explicitly indicate the 39.דוׂשא החזן בן יהושע :existence of a familial relationship between two of the three names According to this signature, Dosa was also a ḥazzan, as his father had been. We have also seen Taken 40.דוסא עלי :that in some cases, Dosa appears together with Eli in the same acrostic together, these data seem to indicate that the two were brothers.

The above surmises can now be confirmed with a reasonable degree of certainty from the documentary Genizah. The most important relevant document is preserved in ms. T-S 13J 23.5, a letter written around the middle of the 11th century to Dosa ben Yehoshua he-Ḥaver al-Ladhiqi in Fustat by his mother in Raqqa in Syria.41 From another letter, preserved in ms. T-S 24.59, and

37 The title indicates that Yehoshua was an official member (ḥaver) of the Palestinian Yeshiva. Previous to having acquired this title, he had been known as a precentor (ḥazzan). currently ,-עות If this argument is accepted, we have before us a medieval witness to the fact that the rhyme-unit 38 is original to the silluq, making it quite likely that the complete text of ,ב represented by these three lines in source this piyyut has yet to be restored. .copied in ms. Mosseri V.80. The text is published in Sh ,אגילה ואשמחה בהדרת זקנים Thus in the qerova 39 .(Tarbiz 15 (1943), pp. 50-62 (57-59 ,'קרובות לחתן' ,Abramason Num. 8.1), copied in) בהעלותך from the qedushta for Parashat דיברתה לקהלתם Thus, for example, in the pizmon 40 ms. Kaufmann 71 (=cat. Widder 29). -Publications of the Diaspora Research Institute, 117; Tel) במלכות ישמעאל בתקופת הגאונים ,See M. Gil 41 Aviv/Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University/Bialik/Ministry of Defense, 1997) vol. 1, pp. 1.512-513. Gil writes there that ‘the al-Ladhiqi family is settled in Raqqa… The males in the family all emigrated to Egypt’ (translations from this source mine). The text of the letter is edited in vol. 2, pp. 236-240. also apparently written in the middle of the 11th century, we read of Eli Ben Yehoshua, a פקבעוה והו חזאן פי אלרקה מקדם :permanent ḥazzan and communal official in Raqqa (l. 26 Eli’s position as ḥazzan obviously tallies with his activities as a copyist of liturgical 42.(אלבלד material.

In view of the evidence adduced here, it now seems that the materials in question, including ms. ENA 3443/2, were copied around the middle of the 11th century by one Eli ben Yehoshua. This Eli was settled in Raqqa, whereas his brother Dosa was resident in Fustat. All three individuals belonged to the al-Ladhiqi family, and all were called ḥazzan. The father Yehoshua also held the title of ḥaver from the Palestinian Yeshiva.

תשמיע ניחומים ללישה Edition of the Silluq .4 scribal = >>א<< ;lacuna or editor’s emendation = [א] ;Editorial Sigla: = doubtful reading omission

[note to the typesetter: In the case of the hollow letters, only the letter itself ought to be hollow. The associated vocalization sign(s) ought to be normal.]

ובכן ולך תעלה קדושה כי אתה אלוהנו

תַשְמִ יעַנִיחּומִ ים לְלַיְשָ ה שִ ּמּועַ בְרִ ית חֲדָ ]ה[ רִ ּפּוי מַ כָה הָאֲ נּושָ קְ רּוָאה הַר ּפְעָמִ ים שְ ל ]ה[ 5 צִ ּיוֹן הכְׂשָדֶ חֲ רּושָ ה הּפְזּורָ לוְעַ הֶהָרִ ים נְ]ט[ּושָ עוֹז וְתִ תפְאֶרֶ לָּה לְהַלְבִ ישָ ה סוֹּלּו סוֹּלּו לְעַּמָ ּה לִפְ רוֹשָ ה נְפוֹצֶ יהָ לְ הָבִיא בִרְ גִישָ ה 10 מֵ ַאדְמָתָ ּה לְבַל יתְהִ נְתּושָ ה לְשַ אֲנְנָּה בְמַרְ גוֹעַ נְפִ ישָ ה כִ יטְרִ ּיָתָ ּה נֶחְבְשָ ה מִ ין זְרוֹעֲָך הַקְ דוֹשָ ה טִירָתְָך תְ כוֹנֵן בִקְ דֻ ושָ ה 15 חֶפְצִיבָּה תִ יקָרֵא דְ רּושָ ה זְבּול הַמְ כֻוּוָן לַּיְשִ יבָ ה הַקְ דוֹשָ ה וְ הוֹצִ יא אֶ ת הָאֶבֶ ן הָ רֹאשָ ה הַ רׂשֵעִ יר וֶאֱדוֹם ׂשִ ים יְרֵ ישָ ה דָבָר לְאַ שּור יְמַהֵ ר וְ יָחִ ישָ ה 20 גוֹיחָ נֵףבְמַטֵ הזַעַמְ ָך לָדּושָ ה בְ כֵן עיְשַּמַ חָ זּות קָשָ ה ַאף הּוא יַגִ]י[עַ חֲלִ ישָ ה כִ י עֵצָ ה הֶ עֱמִ יק וְהִקְשָ ה

vol. 1, p. 513. Gil surmises that the Eli mentioned here was ‘perhaps the brother of the ,מלכות ישמעאל ,Gil 42 abovementioned Dosa’ (i.e., the Dosa mentioned in ms. T-S 13J 23.5). In light of the evidence adduced here, this ארץ- ,conclusion seems nearly certain. The letter in which Eli is mentioned, mc. T-S 24.59, is published in idem Publications of the Diaspora Research Institute, 57; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv) ישראל בתקופה המוסלמית הראשונה )1099-634( University/Bialik/Ministry of Defense, 1983) vol. 2, pp. 356-359. For other references to Dosa, see the index, vol. 3, .(דוסא השר הנכבד בן יהושע החבר, אללאדִ 'קי .p. 666 (s.v גַבְ הּות לְעַצְ מוֹ לְדָרְשָ ה 25 מַ לְכּות עוֹלָם עֲבּור לְ יָרְשָ ה וְתַצְמִ יחַ ןקֶרֶ הזְעֵירָ ּובִ ישָ ה ותצמיח קרן קטנה ורעה כָל ַארְ עָא רָפְסָ ה וְדָ יְשָ ה כל הארץ רומסת ודשה לַּה עַ יְנִין כְעַ יְנֵי אֲ נָשָ א לה עיניים כעייני אנוש עִ ם קַדִ ישִ ין מִתְ כַתְשָ א עם קדושים נאבקת 30 וְ יָכְלָה לְהוֹן לְמַבְאָשָ ה ויכולה להם להרע וְתִתְ יְהִ ב לִ יקֵידַ ת אֶשָ ה ותינתן לשריפת אש בְ כֵן יִתְ גְלֵה עִירָ ה וְ קַדִ ישָ א בכן יתגלה עיר וקדיש ]עִ יּמֵ ּה[ כָל עַ ם קֻודְשָ א עמו כל עם הקודש >>וְ יַצְמִ י קֶרֶן רַבְרְ בִ ין מַרְ גְשָ א<< ויצמית קרן מבהלת ]את פיה לומר[ גדולות 35 לְדָוִ ד מִן רֵ אש מְ פָרְשָ א לדויד מראש מפורשת הַ נְקּובָ ה שֵ ימוֹת שְ לוֹשָ ה ּורְ שּומָ ה אוֹתוֹת שְ לוֹשָ ה בְ כֵן תַשְמִ יעַ קוֹלוֹת שְ לוֹשָ ה בְשַ ַאג שוֹפָ רוֹת שְ לוֹשָ ה

40 לְ עוֹרֵ ר מֵתִ ים בְאֶחָ ד לֶאֱסוֹף נְדּוחִים בְאֶחָ ד לְהַרְ עִ יש דוֹק וָחֶ לֶד בְאֶחָ ד לְהָבִ יא רוֹעֶ ה אֶחָ ד לְהַ שְמִ יעַ יְשּועָה לְגוֹי אֶחָ ד 45 לְגַּלוֹת שִמְ ָך מְ יֻוחָ ד לְאוֹמְרֵ י ייי אֶחָ ד

כ"י ב: ּובְהַשְמִ יעֲָך שְ מּועוֹת אאֶשָ כוֹס יְשּועוֹת אֵ לַי לְהַשְ עוֹת ------

וְתִ לְבַ שמַ לְבּושִ ים עֲׂשָרָ ה לַעֲׂשוֹת נְקָמָה בֶאֱדוֹם הַ גְבִירָ ה לְהָמְמָּה בְ יוֹם זַעַ ם וְעֶבְרָ ה 50 הַ גָדוֹל וְהַ נוֹרָ א וְ תוֹדִ יעַ לְעַ ם יבְרָ א כִי לְ ָך נֵזֶר הּוגְבּורָ וְתִ פְָארָ ה וִ יחַדְ שּו לְָך שִירָ ה לְ ָך זְרוֹעַ םעִ גְבּורָ ה 55 וְ נָאֶה לְ ָך זֵר וַעֲטָרָ ה לְהַ נְחִ יל שִ בְטֵ י שְ חוֹרָ ה מַ לְכּות דלָעַ שְמּורָ ה וְ קוֹל לָעִ יר יִקְרָ א קּומִ י רֹנִי עֲקָרָ ה 60 ַאנְחָתֵ ְך כְבָ ר עָבְרָ ה וְצָמְחָ ה אוֹרָ ה הִ נֵה יְסַדְתִ יְך בְטָ הֳרָ ה בַסַּפִ יר ּובְאֶבֶ ן יְקָרָ ה וְ נַקְדִ ישְ ָך נוֹרָ א 65 כְ זֶה אֶ ל זֶה קָרָ א

ככ>תוב וקרא זה אל זה ואמר קדוש קדוש קדוש יי צבאות מלא כל הארץ כבודו< )יש' ו, ג(

סיום נוסח ב )כ"י ד, אחרי טור 22(: וְ נַעֲרִ יץ וְ נַקְדִישָ ה כְאֵ ילֵי קוֹדֶש לְשַ ּלְשָ ה הַמְשַ ּלְשִ ים קְ דֻושָ ה לְאֵ ל הַ נַעֲרָץ בִקְ דֻושָ ה כזה מזה מקב>לים<

Translation And so: A qedusha will ascend to you for You are our God

1 You’ll proclaim consolation to Laish, / A proclamation of a new covenant, / A healing of the sore wound; / The one thrice called ‘mountain’, / 5 Zion, ploughed like a field, / Scattered and abandoned on the mountains – / Clothing her in strength and splendor, / Announcing ‘Cast up, Cast up [a highway]!’ to her people, / Bringing her scattered in a throng, / 10 That she not be uprooted from her land, / To give her ease in quiet rest. / For her raw [wound] has been bound – / Your holy right hand / will establish Your Tower in holiness. / 15 She will be called I-delight-in- her, Sought One, / the Lofty Habitation, destined for [God’s] holy abode, / ‘And He will produce the capstone’. / Make Mt. Seir and Edom a possession, / May [Your] word hasten quickly to Asshur, / 20 threshing the godless nation with the rod of Your anger. / And so He will announce a harsh vision, / indeed will arrive to overwhelm. / For His counsel is profound and firm – / seeking elevation for Himself, / 25 so as to inherit eternal kingship. / Now [the fourth beast] will sprout a small, evil horn, / stamping and treading down the whole earth. / It has eyes like the eyes of man, / [And] strives with the saints. / 30 It will overpower them with evil-doing, / but will be cast in a flaming fire. / Then the Watchful and Holy One will be revealed, / all the holy people with Him. / And He’ll exterminate the horn that is eager [to speak] arrogantly, / 35 Made plain to David of old, / called by three names, / inscribed with three ciphers. / Then You’ll bring forth three sounds, / with the roaring of three horns –

40 One waking the dead, / One gathering the scattered, / One shaking heaven and earth – / To bring the One Shepherd, / proclaim salvation to the One Nation, / 45 reveal Your unique Name / to those who say ‘The Lord is One’.

:only א .Ms And when You proclaim tidings / I’ll raise the cup of salvation / that You look to me / […]

And You’ll don ten garments / to wreak vengeance on Lady Edom, / 49-50 discomfit her on the great and terrible day of furious anger. / And You’ll make known to the Created People / that crown, glory and splendor are Yours, / And they’ll sing You a new song. / Yours are might and glory, / 55 chaplet and crown befit You – / To bequeath the tribes of the Black Woman / a kingdom preserved forever. / And a voice will cry out to the City, / ‘Arise, shout, Barren One!’ / 60 Your groaning has now passed, / And the light has flourished. / Behold, I Have laid your foundation in purity, / in sapphire and precious stone. / And we’ll sanctify You, Awesome [God] / 65 Like the [angels] calling out to one another.

As it is written: And one called to the other, ‘Holy, holy, holy! The Lord of Hosts! His glory fills all the earth!

Commentary Isa. 10.30). The) הקשיבי לישה .You’ll proclaim consolation to Laish: Cf תשמיע ניחומים ללישה 1 רפוי מכה new covenant: Jer. 31.30. 3 ברית חדשה place name is a metonym of Zion/Israel. 2 .Jer) ומכתי אנושה מאנה הרפא A healing of the sore wound: The collocation is based on האנושה The one thrice called ‘mountain’: The poet is apparently hinting at a קרואה ... שלשה 4 .(15.18 as a reference to הר midrash that enumerates three cases in Scripture of the use of the word Jerusalem, but I have been unable to locate such a one in the sources. For a midrash that ההר הטוב הזה והלבנון ]דב' כ, כה[, הכל קראו אותו הר, enumerates more than three instances, see אברהם קראו הר שנאמר אשר יאמר היום בהר ה' יראה ]בר' כב, יד[, משה קראו הר שנאמר ההר הטוב הזה ]דב' כ, כה[, דוד קראו הר שנאמר מי יעלה בהר ה' ]תה' כד, ג[, ישעיה קראו הר שנאמר והיה באחרית הימים נכון יהיה הר בית ה' ]יש' ב, ב[, גוים קראו אותו הר שנאמר והלכו עמים רבים ואמרו לכו ונעלה אל הר ה' ציון Zion, ploughed like a field: Based on ציון כשדה חרושה Sifre Deut. 28 [pp. 44-45[). 5) ]שם, ג[ ועל .(Jer. 50.17) שה פזורה ישראל .Scattered: Cf פזורה Jer. 26.18; Mic. 3.12). 6) שדה תחרש ראיתי את ישראל נפֹ צים אל ההרים כצאן אשר אין .and abandoned on the mountains: Cf ההרים נטושה .Sam 1) והנה נטֻ שים על פני כל הארץ ;([Kgs 22.17 [and the parallel in 2 Chron. 18.16 1) להם רעה is employed in the Targums as a רטש The root .רטושה reads ד .abandoned: Ms נטושה .(30.16 and it is attested in this sense also in Rabbinic Hebrew – see ,נטש translation of biblical :Clothing her in strength and splendor עוז ... להלבישה 7 .(רטשMoreshet, Lexicon, p. 345 (s.v. 2 strength and splendor: Ps. 96.6. For the עוז ותפארת .(Isa. 52.1) לבשי בגדי תפארתך Based on Cast סולו סולו Ps. 89.18). 8) תפארת עזמו Jer. 48.17) and) מטה עז מקל תפארה lexical pair cf. also .Announcing: The word indicates clear speech—cf לפרושה .up, Cast up [a highway]: Isa. 57.14 in a ברגישה .her scattered: See the verse cited in the comment to line 6 נפוציה Lev. 24.12. 9 uprooted from her land: the locution מאדמתה ... נתושה cf. Ps. 55.15. 10 ;ברגש throng: Similar to מרגוע in quiet rest: The lexical pair is based on במרגוע נפישה is based on Deut. 29.27, etc. 11 ימין זרועך Isa. 1.6). 13) ומכה טריה her raw [wound]: Based on טריתה Jer. 6.16). 12) לנפשכם טירתך Ps. 98.1). 14) ימינו וזרוע קדשו Your holy right hand: The collocation is based on הקדושה -She will be called I-delight-in חפציבה תיקרא דרושה Your Tower: An epithet for the Temple. 15 זבול Isa. 64.12). 16) ולך יקרא דרושה Isa. 62.4) and) כי לך יקרא חפצי-בה her, Sought One: Based on המכוון לישיבה .(Lofty Habitation: An epithet for the Temple, based on 1 Kgs 8.13 (=2 Chron. 6.2 מכון לשבתך —destined for [God’s] holy abode: Based on the end of the same verse הקדושה Make הר ... ירישה And He will produce the capstone: Zech. 4.7. 18 והוציא ... הראשה 17 .עולמים .(Num. 24.18) והיה אדום ירשה והיה ירשה שעיר אֹיביו Mt. Seir and Edom a possession: Based on which supplies the acrostic letter, is apparently influenced also by ,הר The addition of the word .Zech) מי אתה הר הגדול לפני זרֻ בבל למישור—the first part of the verse cited in the preceding line May [Your] word hasten quickly to Asshur: May it be Your will that the דבר ... ויחישה 19 .(4.7 word of retribution that has been spoken against Asshur (a metonym for all of Israel’s enemies) come quickly. The reference is to the Isaianic prophesy that is referred to in the first line of the .Isa) ימהר יחישה hasten quickly: The lexical pair is based on ימהר ויחישה .silluq—Isa. 10.24 foll באף תדוש גוים .threshing the godless nation with the rod of Your anger: Cf גוי ... לדושה 20 .(5.19 godless nation: For the collocation see Isa. 10:6; the enemies of Israel are גוי חנף .(Hab. 3.12) ומטה הוא בידם זעמי with the rod of Your anger: The collocation is based on במטה זעמך .meant :reads differently ד .And so He will announce a harsh vision: Ms בכן ... קשה Isa. 10:5). 21) .based on Gen ,פרא) This reading contains a reference to Arab-Muslim rule .במלכות פרא לדושה א .However, it does not seem to be original; the reading of the base text is attested in mss .(16.12 to overwhelm: I.e., with retribution and בחלישה harsh vision: Isa. 21.2. 22 חזות קשה .ב ג .(Exod. 17.13) ויחלש יהושע את עמלק vengeance exacted upon His enemies. The usage is based on .Isa) המעמיקים מיי לַסתיר עצה His counsel is profound: The collocation is based on עצה העמיק 23 עיני גבהות אדם שפל ... ונשגב יי .seeking elevation for Himself: Cf גבהות לעצמו לדרשה 24 .(29.15 מלכותך מלכות כל עֹלמים .eternal kingship: Cf מלכות עולם Isa. 2.11) and also verse 17. 25) לבדו Now [the fourth beast] will sprout a small, evil horn: Based on ותצמיח ... בישה Ps. 145.13). 26) כל ... Dan. 7.8 [and cf. also 7.20]). 27) ואלו קרן אחרי זעירא סלקת ... ואלו עינין כעיני אנשא בקרנא דא (Dan. 7.23) ותאכֻל כל ארעא ותדושִ נַּה stamping and treading down the whole earth: Based on ודישה eyes like the eyes of man: See the עינין כעייני אנשא Dan. 7.7, 19). 28) ושארא ברגלה רפסה and strives with the saints. It will overpower them: Based on עם ... להון comment to line 26. 29-30 strives: The verb is attested in מתכתשא Dan. 7:21). 29) וקרנא דכן עבדא קרב עם קדישין ויכלה להן evil-doing: This is the JPA form of the למבאשה JPA—see Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 273. 30 but ותתיהב ליקידת אשה 31 .לאבאשא :the corresponding BA form is attested ב .infinitive; in ms the עירה וקדישא Dan. 7.11). 32) ויהיבת ליקדת אשא will be cast in a flaming fire: Based on Dan. 4.10, 20). In Daniel, the reference is to some) עיר וקדיש Watchful and Holy One: Based on sort of angelic being, whereas a plain-sense reading of the present context seems to indicate that the reference here is to God Himself. However, it is possible that the payyetan had in mind an ופֻם ממלל eager [to speak] arrogantly: Based on רברבין מרגשא angel sent to redeem Israel. 34 Made plain to לדוד ... מפרשה means ‘to come thronging’. 35 הרגש Dan. 7.8, 20). In BA) רברבן David of old: Referring to the (typological) ‘wicked kingdom’ that oppresses Israel, foreseen by דוד רואה אותם ארבעתם היאך הם באות בכח ומשתעבדות בישראל, התחיל תמיה עליהם ואומר David—see אשר הראיתני צרות רבות ורעות ]תה' עא, כ[, רבות שתיים מלכות מדי ומלכות אדום, תשוב תחייני ומתהומות הארץ תשוב תעליני ]שם[ אמר תחייני מן הראשונה משיעבודה של מלכות בבל, תשוב תחייני מן השנייה משיעבודה של מדי, תעליני מן השלישית משיעבודה של יון, מתהומות הארץ תשוב תעליני זו אדום of old: The phrase in attested in JPA—see מן ראש .([Pesiqta Rabbati 33 [fol. 152b) הרשע הנקובה Made plain: For this usage see Ezra 4.18. 36 מפרשא .Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 510 called by three names: The allusion is to the Christian kingdom, which is known by שימות שלושה :inscribed with three ciphers ורשומה אותות שלושה see line 18. 37 ;שעיר and אדום ,עשָ ו the names … Then You’ll bring forth three sounds בכן ... באחד 38-42 .עשָ ו The reference is apparently to One shaking heaven and earth: The payyetan enumerates the three shofarot that will be sounded יתקע בשופר גדול ]יש' כז, יג[ דשלשה שופרות הן לעתיד לבא. אחד להחיות מתים... ואחד .in the future. Cf p. 371]; and with] שלג .Maḥzor Vitry, par) לכינוס גליות... ואחד להפיל שערותיהם של אומות העולם minor variations in Arugat ha-Bosem 3, pp. 472-473). See also Setel, Three Shofar Blasts. This for Shabbat Shim‘u by אחודה ללמודי חידה midrash is attested also in the silluq of the qedushta בְהַשְמִ יעֲָךשָ לוֹשתְקִ יעוֹת /ַאחַ ת םלְרוֹמֵ הַטְבִ יעוֹת / וְ ַאחַ תלְהַחֲזִיר נְשָ מוֹתהַבְ לּועוֹת / וְ ַאחַ ת לְנַעֵ ר :Yehuda lines 27-30; Rand, MEY, p. 544). See also Elizur and Rand, Qillir RH, pp. 152-) מִ קוֹדֶ ש רְשָ עוֹת והקמתי One Shepherd: And epithet for the Messiah son of David, based on רועה אחד 43 .154 to the One לגוי אחד Ezek. 34.23, and see also 37.24). 44) עליהם רעה אחד ורעה אתהן את עבדי דויד .Sam. 7.23 [=1 Chron 2) ומי כעמך כישראל גוי אחד בארץ Nation: An epithet for Israel, based on to those who say ‘The לאומרי ייי אחד Ezek. 37.22). 46) ועשיתי אתם לגוי אחד בארץ and ([17.21 אשא כוס :ב .Lord is One’: To Israel, who say ‘Hear, O Israel…’ (Deut. 6.4). [Text from ms ותלבש ... Ps. 116.13).] 47-48) כוס ישועות אשא I’ll raise the cup of salvation: Based on ישועות And You’ll don ten garments to wreak vengeance on Lady Edom: A reference to God’s הגבירה בעשרה מקומות נקראו ישר' כלה ... וכנגדן לבש הקב"ה עשרה לבושין ... הלבוש התשיעי :ten garments .PDRK 22.5 [pp) שעתיד הקב"ה ללבוש ליפרע ממלכות אדום אדום הוא שנ' מדוע אדֹם ללבושיך ]יש' סג, ב[ 329-330]). In the present case, however, God will wear all ten garments at the time of His discomfit her: In the parallel BH form the mem is doubled by להממה vengeance on Edom. 49 on the great and ביום ... הגדול והנורא Deut. 2:15; Est. 9.24). 49-50) לְהֻּמָ ם :means of a dagesh זעם ועברה Joel 3.4; Mal. 3.23). 49) יום יי הגדול והנורא terrible day of furious anger: Based on :to the Created People לעם ניברא Ps. 78.49). 51) עברה וזעם .furious anger: For the lexical pair cf .Yours are might and glory: Ps. 89.14 לך ... גבורה An epithet for Israel, based on Ps. 102.19. 54 וקול Song 1.5). 58) שחורה אני ונאוה the Black Woman: An epithet for Israel, based on שחורה 56 קומי רני Mic. 6.9). 59) קול יי לעיר יקרא And a voice will cry out to the City: Based on לעיר יקרא Isa. 54.1). 62-63) רני עקרה Lam. 2.19) and) קומי רני Arise, shout, Barren One!: Based on עקרה Behold, I Have laid your foundation in purity, in sapphire and precious stone: Based הנה ... יקרה .(Isa. 54.11-12) הנה אנכי מרביץ בפוך אבניך ויסדתיך בספירים ... וכל גבולך לאבני חפץ on

Sources ENA 3443/2 (lines 1-46 + the three unnumbered lines ;(א ;Base text: ENA 351/10-11 (lines 1-65 .Ox. Heb. f. 36, fol. 6-7 (=part of cat ;(ג ;-65']ב[רית T-S NS 208.18 (lines 2 ;(ב ;after line 46 (ד ;ב Neubauer 2738/1; lines 1-22 + end version סלוק. תשמיע :(The text is also mentioned in ms. Frankfurt 152 (Schocken Institute photostat .ניחומים לליש]ה[. והו מצחח פי נסכה עלי בן יהושע החבר Weissenstern, Yoḥanan, pp. 78 (text), 238-239 :(ד .Previous edition (solely on the basis of ms (commentary)

Variant Readings כותרת: סלוק שמעו ב סלוקה דשמעו ד 2 שמוע[ שימוע ב 4 שלושה[ שלשה ב 6 נטושה[ ה הגהה על פי ונטושה ב רטושה ד נפושה ג 7 עוז[ עז ב / ותפארת[ ותפארה ג ד / לה[ חסר ב 8 לעמה[ אורח לעמה ב / לפרושה[ לפרשה ד לה ישה ב 9 נפוציה[ נפֻציה ד נפוצה ב 10 לבל[ בל ב / נתושה[ נטושה ד 11 במרגוע[ מ גיע ג 12 טריתה[ טרייתה ב ג ד 13 הקדושה[ ח]שו[ לקדשה ד 14 בקדושה[ ולחדשה ד 15 תיקרא[ תקרא ב ג ד 16 הקדושה[ קדושה ג הקד שה ד 17 את[ חסר ג 18 ירישה[ ירשה ב 19 ימהר[ וימהר ג 20 זעמך לדושה[ עוזך לחרושה ד 21 במקומו נוסח אחר במלכות פרא לדושה ד / ישמע[ ישמיע ב 22 הוא[ חסר ד / יגיע[ ה הגהה על פ י ב ד יגוע א / בחלישה[ בלחישה ב 24 לעצמו[ לעמו ב 25 לירשה[ בשה ב 26 ותצמיח[ ותצמ ת כנראה מתוקן מן ותצמח ג / זעירה[ ]זעי[רא ב / ובישה[ ויבישה ב 27 רפסה[ רפסא ב 28 לה[ ולה ב / עינין[ עיינין ג / כעיני[ כעייני ב ג / אנשא[ אינשה ג 29 מתכתשא[ מתכנשא ב 30 למבאשה[ לאבאשא ב 31 ותתיהב[ ות ]י[היב ב / אשה[ אש ב 32 בכן יתגלה עירה[ ותגלי עיר ב / וקדישא[ ]וק[דישה ג 33 עמיה[ ההגהה על פי ב עימיה ג לעלמה א / קודשא[ קודש ג קדו א ב 34 הה שלמה על פ י ב חסר א 35 לדוד[ לדויד ב / ראש[ ריש ב / מפרשא[ מפרשה ג 36 שימות שלושה[ ש ]ות[ שה ב 37 הט ור חסר ב 38 בכן תשמיע[ בה שמיע ב / שלושה[ שלשה ב 39 בשאג[ כ אז ב / שלושה[ ש ב 40 מתים[ מיתים ג 46 אחד[ אלה נו יי אחד ב 52 נזר וגבורה[ נצח ג 58 יקרא[ תקרא ג 60 אנחתך כבר[ ב]ר ..[ך ג 61 אורה[ שמחה וא רה ג 63 ובאבן[ ואבן ג

Bibliographical Abbreviations Arugat ha-Bosem 3 – E.E. Urbach (ed.), Sefer Arugat Habosem – III (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1964) רבי אלעזר בירבי קליר: פיוטים לראש השנה ,Elizur and Rand, Qillir RH – Sh. Elizur and M. Rand (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies/The David and Amalia Rosen Foundation, 2014) Maḥzor Vitry – S. Hurvitz (ed.), Machsor Vitry (Nuremberg: J. Bulka, 2nd ed., 1923) Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan) לקסיקון הפועַ ל שנתחדש בלשון התנאים ,Moreshet, Lexicon – M. Moreshet University Press, 1980) PDRK – B. Mandelbaum (ed.), Pesikta de Kahana (New York: JTSA, 1987) Pesiqta Rabbati – M. Friedman (Ish-Shalom) (ed.), Pesikta Rabbati (Vienna: 1880) [note to editor: no publisher] Rand, MEY – see note 30 in the article סגולה: עיונים ,in idem ,'שלושת התקיעות שבאחרית הימים' ,Setel, Three Shofar Blasts – Y.Y. Setel [Jerusalem: 2012) [note to editor: no publisher) וברורים במנהג והלכה, פיוט, מדרש ואגדה, א Sifre Deut. – L. Finkelstein (ed.), Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York: JTSA, 2001) Sokoloff, Dictionary – see note 16 in the article Weissenstern, Yoḥanan – see note 26 in the article